SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

house. Hence, the appellant is duly complied with the condition as per section 54F of the Act 3.1] That the first reason as mentioned by the Pr. CIT for issuing the notice u/s 263 to the appellant was as under:- ● That appellant has claimed that transfer of Land took place in A.Y. 2014-15 however while determining the sale consideration

KALPANA JAIN,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property along with land appurtenant thereto, hence there is no question in respect deduction u/s 54/54F. With due humble request it is submitted to your honour that we have exchanged property at Rs. 7,64,60,000/- adopted by the stamp authority, which is full value consideration for both the parties. Because properties are not exchanged below the value

HASSANAND KHEMLANI,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1 ,INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property along with land appurtenant thereto, hence there is no question in respect deduction u/s 54/54F. With due humble request it is submitted to your honour that we have exchanged property at Rs. 7,64,60,000/- adopted by the stamp authority, which is full value consideration for both the parties. Because properties are not exchanged below the value

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAJEEV AJMERA, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3(1) Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Co No.23/Ind/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.51/Ind/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rajeev Ajmera, Dcit-3(1) Indore Indore बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abgpa4930L Assessee By Shri Mahendra Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R

Property-brokership. The assessee has paid a total commission of Rs. 1,74,50,000/- to four parties i.e. (i) Rs. 1,20,00,000/- to M/s Jhavar & Associates, (ii) Rs. 48,50,000/- to M/s Violet Commercial Pvt. Ltd., (iii) Rs. 3,00,000/- to Vijay Bakliwal, and (iv) Rs. 3,00,000/- to Pratibha Bakliwal and claimed deduction

SMT NAYANA JAYESH PATEL ,INDORE vs. ACIT ( OSD ) , INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninayana Jayesh Patel Pr. Cit 29/5, South Tukoganj Indore Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Afypp 2075H Assessee By Shri Sudhir Padliya, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02 .08.2023

property. As per the first proviso to section 50C(1) if there is a prior registered agreement for the transfer of the capital asset the value adopted or assessment by the stamp value authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purpose of computation full value of consideration of such transfer. However the stamp duty value

SHRI NARENDRA TRIPATHI,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT-CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 50C is primarily applicable on the seller of the property. There is no evidence on record which could show that the Ld. A.O carried out any investigation against the seller or took his/her statement or whether any addition has been made in the hands of the seller for the alleged amount being received over and above the amount stated

JAYA JUNEJA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

house property. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that as per the Jaya Juneja vs. ITO A.Y. 2015-16 lease deeds, the assessee was entitled to annual lease rent of ₹1,00,000/- from each property and the same was not offered to tax in the return of income. Since the assessee failed to furnish any explanation or evidence during appellate

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. M/S. CHUGH REALTY, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 50C of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI MOHANLAL CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 50C of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI NITESH CHUGH, INDORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the A

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing)

section 50C of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has made the additions purely on his guess work and surmises which do not have any basis whatsoever. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting

M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

M/S. BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ITO, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE LTD., DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

THE DCIT, 1(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S BHOOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,, DEWAS

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

M/S BHOMIYAJI LAND & FINANCE CO.,DEWAS vs. THE ACIT 1(1), UJJAIN

In the result ground No.3& 4 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2006-07

50C of the Act, being the difference of market value and purchase cost of the plots purchase. Ld. AO made the remaining addition (Rs. 52 lacs-23,02,500/-) at Rs.28,97,500/- as unexplained investment in the properties. We have already discussed the issue in detail while adjudicating ground no.1 above that addition cannot be made merely

MOHAN PATIDAR L/H SHRI JAMNA PRASAD PATIDAR,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(5), BHOPAL

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshri Shyamlal Patidar, Ito 2(5), बनाम/ House No.23, Bhopal Vs. Near Ram Mandir, Purani Basti Jhatkhedi, Bhopal (Pan: Efqpp51544H) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Mohan Patidar (Through Ito 2(5), बनाम/ Legal Heir Jamna Bhopal Vs. Prasad Patidar, House No.53, Purani Basti, Bhopal (Pan: Dphpp2974H) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Badri Prasad Ito 2(5), बनाम/ Patidar, Bhopal Vs. Village Jatkhedi, Post Misrod, Bhopal (Pan: Agtpp3050G) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

House No.53, Purani Basti, Bhopal (PAN: DPHPP2974H) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Shri Badri Prasad ITO 2(5), बनाम/ Patidar, Bhopal Vs. Village Jatkhedi, Post Misrod, Bhopal (PAN: AGTPP3050G) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) ITANos.286,287&401/Ind/2023 Shyamlal Patidar & Others Assessee by S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.08.2024 Date of 28.08.2024 Pronouncement आदेश